NOC-AE-11002723, Response to Requests for Additional Information for the License Renewal Application
| ML11259A014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/2011 |
| From: | Gerry Powell South Texas |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NOC-AE-11002723, STI: 32923275, TAC ME4938, TAC ME5122, G25 | |
| Download: ML11259A014 (15) | |
Text
Nuclear Operating Company N EW _ _ _ _ _ _ _
South Texas Pro/ec Electric GeneraliSn Station PO Bar 289 Wadsworth. Texas 77483 .\A -
September 12, 2011 NOC-AE-1 1002723 10CFR54 STI: 32923275 File: G25 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2746 South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Response to Requests for Additional Information for the South Texas Proiect License Renewal ADDlication (TAC Nos. ME4938 and ME5122)
References:
- 1. STPNOC Letter dated October 25, 2010, from G. T. Powell to NRC Document Control Desk, "License Renewal Application," (NOC-AE-10002607) (ML103010257)
- 2. NRC letter dated August 18, 2011, "Requests for Additional Information for the Review of the South Texas Project License Renewal Application (TAC Nos. ME4938 and ME5122) (ML11214A207)
By Reference 1, STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) submitted a License Renewal Application (LRA) for South Texas Project (STP) Units 1 and 2. By Reference 2, the NRC staff requested additional information for review of the STP LRA. STPNOC's response to the requests for additional information is provided in the Enclosure to this letter.
There are no regulatory commitments in this letter.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact either Arden Aldridge, STP License Renewal Project Lead, at (361) 972-8243 or Ken Taplett, STP License Renewal Project regulatory point-of-contact, at (361) 972-8416.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on 1--PcolI Date G. T. Powell Vice President, Technical Support & Oversight KJT
Enclosure:
STPNOC Response to Requests for Additional Information (kAJI W?
NOC-AE-1 1002723 Page 2 cc:
(paper copy) (electronic copy)
Regional Administrator, Region IV A. H. Gutterman, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Kathryn M. Sutton, Esquire 612 East Lamar Blvd, Suite 400 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Arlington, Texas 76011-4125 Balwant K. Singal John Ragan Senior Project Manager Catherine Callaway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jim von Suskil One White Flint North (MS 881) NRG South Texas LP 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Ed Alarcon Senior Resident Inspector Kevin Polio U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard Pena P.O. Box 289, Mail Code: MN116 City Public Service Wadsworth, TX 77483 C. M. Canady Peter Nemeth City of Austin Crain Caton & James, P.C.
Electric Utility Department 721 Barton Springs Road C. Mele Austin, TX 78704 City of Austin John W. Daily Richard A. Ratliff License Renewal Project Manager (Safety) Alice Rogers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Texas Department of State Health Services One White Flint North (MS 011-Fl)
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Balwant K. Singal Tam Tran John W. Daily License Renewal Project Manager Tam Tran (Environmental) U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North (MS 011 F01)
Washington, DC 20555-0001
Enclosure NOC-AE-1 1002723 Page 1 of 7 STPNOC Response to Requests for Additional Information SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The requests for information (RAIs) listed below were derived from the audit needs in the "Plan for the Environmental Audit Regarding the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application Review." (ML11145A064).
Ecolony A-1: Provide information describing what species of invasive plants or animals or both have been observed or documented on the South Texas Project (STP) site.
STP Response:
Invasive plant species found on the site include yaupon and McCartney rose. Feral pigs are commonly observed on the site.
A-2: Provide information describing any invasive species populations being managed.
STP Response:
Feral pigs are occasionally trapped or culled.
TL-2: Provide information to clarify which companies maintain which transmission lines and transmission line rights-of-ways.
STP Response:
The transmission lines within the scope for the license renewal analysis are discussed in Section 3.1.3 of the STP License Renewal Application Environmental Report (ER).
The ownership of the STP transmission lines and transmission line right-of-ways are as follows:
" Velasco - This double-circuit line on double-circuit towers runs east from STP to the Velasco substation south of Houston in Brazoria County. The 100-feet wide corridor is 45 miles long. The line is owned and operated by CenterPoint Energy.
- Blessing - This single-circuit line heads west from STP for approximately eight miles, turns north for approximately seven miles, and terminates at the Blessing Substation in Matagorda County. The corridor to Blessing is 100 feet wide. The line is owned and operated by American Electric Power Texas Central Company.
- Hillje - The Hillje substation is in the southwestern corner of Wharton County, across the border from Matagorda County. The corridor is 400 feet wide and 20 miles long and contains six 345-kV transmission lines from STP. Hill Country,
Enclosure NOC-AE-1 1002723 Page 2 of 7 Skyline, and Holman lines all run the entire 20 miles with only Holman tied into Hillje substation. Two of the six lines were constructed to connect STP to the pre-existing W.A. Parish and Lon Hill (White Point) lines. A recently added sixth line runs between STP and Hillje. In addition, a 138-kV line that brings emergency power in to STP is adjacent to the corridor for the first 6 miles.
o W. A. Parish loop - The pre-existing W. A. Parish-to-Lon Hill line was looped into the STP substation. This 20-mile loop connects STP to the W. A. Parish line and is subject to analysis as it was constructed originally to connect the plant to the grid. The loop resides in the Hillje corridor. The loop is owned and operated by CenterPoint Energy.
o Hillje line - A recently added sixth line runs the 20-mile distance between STP and Hillje and increases the reliability of the overall transmission system.
This line is owned by CenterPoint Energy.
o Lon Hill loop - The pre-existing W. A. Parish-to-Lon Hill line was looped into the STP substation. This 20-mile loop connects STP to the Lon Hill line and is subject to analysis as it was constructed originally to connect the plant to the grid. The loop resides in the Hillje corridor. The loop is owned and operated by CenterPoint Energy.
" Holman - This single circuit line exits STP and proceeds first to the Hillje substation on a double-circuit tower shared with the Lon Hill (White Point) loop. From HilIje, the line continues to Holman for an additional 75 miles in a 100-foot corridor. From STP to Hillje, the line is owned and operated by CenterPoint Energy. From Hillje to Holman the line is owned and operated by the City of Austin.
- Hill Country - The Hill Country and Skyline lines exit STP and run on separate double-circuit towers, sharing towers with W.A. Parish and STP-Hillje loops respectively, for 20 miles in the Hillje corridor. At that point, these lines diverge from their counterparts and continue for 119 miles on double-circuit towers in a 100-foot corridor to the Elm Creek substation. From Elm Creek, the Hill Country line continues for an additional 41 miles in a 100-foot corridor to the Hill Country substation. This line is owned and operated by City Public Service of San Antonio.
" Skyline - The Hill Country and Skyline lines exit STP and run on separate double-circuit towers, sharing towers with W.A. Parish and STP- Hillje loops respectively, for 20 miles in the Hillje corridor. At that point, these lines diverge from their counterparts and continue for 119 miles on double-circuit towers in a 100-foot corridor to the Elm Creek substation. From Elm Creek, the Skyline line continues for an additional 29 miles in a 100-foot corridor to the Skyline substation. This line is owned and operated by City Public Service of San Antonio.
- White Point loop - The Lon Hill line was looped into the White Point substation. This 10-mile loop resides in a 100-foot-wide corridor. The loops are owned and operated by American Electric Power Texas Central Company.
Enclosure NOC-AE-1 1002723 Page 3 of 7 AQ-3: Describe the intake velocity through the traveling screens at the cooling water intake structure.
STP Response:
The Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) for STP Units 1 & 2 withdraws water for plant cooling from the Main Cooling Reservoir (MCR). The MCR is not considered a water of the United States by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers based on the jurisdictional determination dated April 7, 2009 (SWG-2008-1351) (Attachment to this Enclosure). The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has determined that the MCR is not water in the state of Texas via its letter dated June 27, 2007 (Reference 1). The CWIS utilizes a closed-cycle recirculating system and reflects the Best Technology Available (BTA) for minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact (AEI).
Makeup to the MCR is intermittently provided from the Colorado River, which is a water of the U.S., by the Reservoir Makeup Pumping Facility (RMPF). The RMPF reflects BTA in accordance with Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b) based on the letter submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by Houston Lighting & Power Company dated June 28, 1982. The EPA approved use of the RMPF with issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. TX0064947 on December 20, 1982 (see STP LRA ER Section 4.2). The design and intermittent operation of the RMPF on the Colorado River meets BTA for minimizing AEI. The RMPF structure has the following design:
- The traveling water screens are flush with the river shoreline;
- The maximum approach velocity to the traveling water screens is 0.5 feet per second (fps);
- Fish passageways were constructed in the wing walls between the traveling screens to facilitate fish migration parallel to the screen surfaces; and
" A sluice and discharge line was installed for the purpose of returning all impinged organisms directly to the river downstream of the intake structure after being backwashed from the screens.
Flow through the RMPF traveling screens is approximated by a calculation performed in early 2008 to determine acceptable pumping configurations during conditions of high silt buildup in front of the screens. Silt buildup reduces the usable screen surfaces and affects the velocity of water moving through the screens. For all pumping configurations, the calculation demonstrates that through-screen velocities range from 0.04 to 0.5 fps as long as 8 feet or more of water above the silt is available. For lesser amounts of water depth, pumping configuration restrictions are necessary and have been incorporated into the operating procedure for the RMPF.
AQ-5: Describe the cleaning and maintenance procedures at all intake and discharge structures on the Colorado River and the Main Cooling Reservoir, including the frequency of dredging, physical cleaning, and other applicable maintenance procedures.
STP Response:
Dredging of the intake to the RMPF, that draws water from the Colorado River, occurs approximately every 3-5 years. For example, dredging operations occurred in 1995, 1998, 2003, 2005, and 2009. The need to dredge is based on when high flows in the
Enclosure NOC-AE-1 1002723 Page 4 of 7 Colorado River deposit silt in front of and under the RMPF intake travelling screens.
Dredged material is placed in a spoil area on STP property in accordance with a U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers permit. Material and debris removed from the travelling screens is directed to a trash basket or returned to the river depending on the amount of debris being collected. Debris collected in the trash basket is disposed of appropriately.
Dredging of the Main Cooling Reservoir Circulating Water Intake Structure (CWIS) is not required because silt does not build up under the travelling screens. Debris collected from washing the travelling screens at the CWIS is collected in a trash basket and disposed of appropriately. Routine corrective and preventative maintenance is performed at both facilities as required and on scheduled frequencies.
Cleaning and maintenance on the Main Cooling Reservoir Circulating Water Discharge Structure is minimal. Recent maintenance of the Reservoir Blowdown Discharge Structure has consisted of repair of the river bank revetment.
Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice SOC-1: In addition to property tax payment information presented in the environmental report (ER), provide information describing any other major annual support payments, one-time payments, and other forms of non-tax compensation (if any) provided to local organizations, communities, and jurisdictions (e.g.,
county, municipality, townships, villages, incorporated places, and school districts) on behalf of STP.
STP Response:
STP provides no major annual support payments, one-time payments, and other forms of non-tax compensation to local organizations, communities, and jurisdictions other than those described in Section 2.10 of the Environmental Report.
SOC-2: Provide information about any changes in assessed property value or any other recent or anticipated payment adjustments that could result in notable increases or decreases in tax or other payments.
STP Response:
No notable changes in assessed property value or other recent payment adjustments have occurred that would increase or decrease taxes or other payments. No future payment adjustments are anticipated that would increase or decrease taxes or other payments. As discussed in Section 2.10.1 of the Environmental Report, STPNOC negotiated a service fee in lieu of property taxes with Matagorda County and the local hospital district with a revenue cap.
Enclosure NOC-AE-1 1002723 Page 5 of 7 SOC-3: Provide data on the height of the tallest (visible from offsite locations) structures at STP and general information on the visibility of plant facilities from various offsite locations.
STP Response:
The elevation of the tallest structure at the site (the reactor containment building domes) are approximately 140 feet. The nearest full-time residence to the STP is approximately 1.5 miles west southwest from the site boundary and 2.5 miles west southwest from the center point between the Units 1 & 2 reactor containment buildings.
There are a total of eleven residences within a 5-mile radius of STP . The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) recreation park is approximately 6 miles east of the STP site. At these distances, the STP reactor containment buildings are visible.
SOC-4: Provide information about possible noise emissions from the site that could be a nuisance in the vicinity of STP. Also, provide applicable information if complaints have been received at STP concerning noise from operations heard offsite.
STP Response:
STPNOC reviewed the noise determinations made by the NRC with regard to similar nuclear power plants (i.e., those using a cooling lake or other body of water and operating water pumps). The noise level emitting from STP Units 1 & 2 at the site boundary appears to be less than background. Background or ambient sound levels at the STP site could compare to the ambient sound level of a farm (44 decibels) or to that of a small town or quiet suburban area (46 to 52 decibels). The exception would be when the public address system is used and warning sirens are tested, which are both relatively short-lived occurrences.
STPNOC has received no complaints regarding noise, as documented in the STPNOC, March 2009, New and Significant Report for STP Units 1 & 2.
SOC-6: Provide information on (a) the nearest residence to STP (e.g. distance in miles),
(b) which direction it is located from STP, and (c) the types of residence (e.g.,
vacation home, farm, single family, etc.).
STP Response:
The nearest full-time residence is approximately 1.5 miles west southwest from the site boundary and 2.5 miles west southwest from the center point between Units 1 & 2. This residence is occupied full time.
EJ-1: Provide information about any observed subsistence consumption behavior patterns-specifically fish and wildlife consumption-by minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of STP. This subsistence consumption behavior could consist of (a) hunting, fishing, and trapping of game animals and (b) any other general food gathering activities (e.g., collecting nuts, berries, and other plant materials) conducted by minority and low-income individuals in the vicinity of STP.
Enclosure NOC-AE-1 1002723 Page 6 of 7 STP Response:
STPNOC investigated the possibility of subsistence-living populations in the vicinity of the STP site by contacting local government officials, the staff of social welfare agencies, and local community leaders concerning any known unusual resource dependencies or practices that could result in potentially disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income populations. STPNOC asked about the presence of minority, low-income, or migrant populations of particular concern, and whether subsistence living conditions were evident. No agency reported such dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing, through which the populations could be disproportionately adversely affected by continued operation of the STP facility.
Typically, Indian Tribes are the only potential for subsistence activities, and there are no Tribal communities within 50 miles of the plant.
Alternatives ALT-I: Provide information describing how coal and other materials would be transported to the STP site. Would there be construction or modification of transportation infrastructure (e.g., rail lines, roads, etc.) associated with license renewal activities?
STP Response:
For consideration of alternative energy sources, STPNOC assumes that coal and lime (calcium oxide) would be delivered to STP Units 1 & 2 via an existing rail spur. Some minor upgrades to the rail spur, such as installation of new ballast or rail sections on the existing rail bed and construction of a new rail spur onsite, may be needed if the coal-fired alternative were built at the STP site.
ALT-2: The ER states that after combustion, (i.e. coal fire alternative) STP Nuclear Operating Company assumed that 43 percent of the ash, approximately 193,000 tons per year, would be marketed for beneficial reuse. Provide information describing what beneficial uses for the ash that is expected by the applicant.
STP Response:
Potential beneficial applications for coal ash include use as raw material for products such as concrete, roofing tiles and shingles, bricks and blocks, and asphalt. Other potential uses include waste stabilization/solidification, fill for inactive mines, road base/sub-base material, structural fill, blasting grit, and aggregate.
Water Resource WR-2: Provide information describing any Notices of Violation, nonconformance notifications, or related infractions received from regulatory agencies associated with Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitted discharges, septic or sewage systems, cooling pond, reservoir, on-site landfill, and groundwater or soil contamination. Groundwater or soil contamination (and associated
Enclosure NOC-AE-1 1002723 Page 7 of 7 remediation activities) includes spills, leaks, and other inadvertent releases of fuel solvents, chemicals, or radionuclides for the past 5 years.
STP Response:
STPNOC has not received any Notices of Violation, nonconformance notifications, or related infractions received from regulatory agencies associated with the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitted discharges, septic or sewage systems, cooling pond, reservoir, on-site landfill, and groundwater or soil contamination for the past 5 years.
Reference:
- 1. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2007. Letter from Mr. Kelly Holligan, TCEQ, to Mr. R. A. Gangluff, STPNOC, dated June 27,2007, "Cooling Water Intake Structures Phase" Rules; South Texas Project Electric Generating Station; TPDES Permit No. WQOOO 1908000."
Note: This document was transmitted by STPNOC to the NRC Document Control Desk on August 31, 2011, "Transmittal of Documents to Support Review of the South Texas Project License Renewal Application" (NOC-AE-1 1002720) and designated as transmitted document "AQ-5".
Attachment to Enclosure NOC-AE-1 1002723 Attachment Department of the Army Galveston District, Corps of Engineers Letter to the South Texas Project Operating Company "SWG-2008-1351, South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company, Jurisdictional Determination, 7000-Acre Mass' Cooling Reservoir (MCR),
Wadsworth, Matagorda County, Texas" Dated April 7, 2009 1 The term "Mass" Cooling Reservoir in the title to this letter is the same reservoir as the "Main" Cooling Reservoir located at on the South Texas Project site.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY GALVESTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 1229 GALVESTON TX 77553-1229 RtEPLY TO April 7, 2009 A6r ENTIONOF:
Compliance Section
SUBJECT:
SWG-2008-1351, South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company, Jurisdictional Determination, 7,000-Acre Mass Cooling Reservoir (MCR), Wadsworth, Matagorda County, Texas Mr. Gregory Gibson South Texas Project Operating Company P.O. Box 289 Wadsworth, Texas 77483
Dear Mt. Gibson:
This letter is in response to an initial request dated April 9, 2008 to conduct a jurisdictional delineation verification on the project site for the proposed construction of Nuclear Power Units 3 and 4 under the project number SWG-2007-786. On February 26, 2009 at the request of the applicant the land portion and the MCR were separated because they have been defined as two separate project areas. The northern portion maintains the project number SWG-2007-786 and the MCR was assigned the project number SWG-2008-1351. The project site is depicted as Tract B on the attached map received October 28, 2008 and is located on Farm-to-Market 521, approximately 8 miles west of Wadsworth, Matagorda County, Texas.
We have determined that the South Texas Project (STP) MCR is not a water of the United States for the following reasons including but not limited to: (1) the MCR is a man-made water body that is not in entirety impounded from one water, (2) its sources of hydrology are only precipitation and supplemental water pumped from the Colorado River, (3) its discharge system is controlled by outfall structures, and (4) it is not used by the public for recreation. Therefore; a Department of the Army Permit will not be required for the discharge of dredged and or fill material into the MCR (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and for work and or structures affecting the MCR (Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899).
This jurisdictional determination has been conducted to identify the limits of the Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. This verification may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service prior to starting work.
This letter contains an approved jurisdictional detenrmination for the subject site. This determination remains valid for 5 years from the date of this letter, unless new information warrants revision or reissuance prior to its expiration. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Administrative Appeals Options and Process (NAP) and Request for
Appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination, you must submit a completed RFA form to the Southwest Division Office at the following address:
Mr. James Gilmore Appeal Review Officer, CESWD-ETO-R U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1100 Commerce Street, Suite 831 Dallas, Texas 75242-1317 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of this NAP. It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division office if you do not object to the determination in this letter.
If you have any questions concerning this determination, please reference file number SWG-2008-1351 and contact Mr. Nicholas Laskowski at the letterhead address or by telephone at 409-766-6381.
Sincerely, Ke Ja es Chef, C p c Section Enclosures Copy Furnished:
Mr. Russell Kiesling Regulatory Affairs South Texas Project P.O. Box 289 Wadsworth, Texas 77483 Mr. Jayson Hudson US Army Corps of Engineers
STP Nuclear Operating Company Legend A.Usli Site Property Boundary STPNOC sh.PnepefBoeenx" Matagorda County, Texas GNSK FRgure1 o Z-o 4oc *o9 Augst 2008 I_______________________ I I Pit' I
K: - -
- >NOTIFICATIQ~{ON AMNSrAT"V. APPEAL OPTION& "NI AD-REQUEST-JOR APPEALPqcs Applicant: South Texas Project Operating Company I File Number: SWG 2008-1351 DateO4/07/09 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of Permission) A PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of Permission) B PERMIT DENIAL C X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E SECTION. I - The following identifies your.rigts and options regarding an. administrative appeal of teabove Sdecision, Additional information may be foud at hftb://Www.usace.armv mil/inftefunctions/6e/cecwo/re/ .
or Corps regulationsat 33 CFR Part 33.1.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer.
Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
- ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
- APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved jurisdictional determination (JD) or provide new information.
- ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
- APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION.II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT1 REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTAcT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the appeal If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may process you may contact: also contact:
Nicholas Laskowski Mr. James Gilmore Regulatory Specials, Compliance Section Appeal Review Officer, CESWD-ETO-R CESWG-PE-RC U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1100 Commerce Street, Room 831 P.O. Box 1229 Dallas, Texas 75242-1317 Galveston, Texas 77553-1229 Telephone: 469-487-7061; FAX: 469-487-7190 409-6381; FAX: 409-766-3931 RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date: ITelephone number:
Signature of appellant or authorized agent.